Okey I did post this on some another thread, but in hindsight that other thread has being derailed enough so I shouldn't of done that, and since I am curious to see how this goes I may as well make a thread.

I am curious if you were convinced to your own satisfaction that humans as we think of them now did or probably did come into being, not by an some act of near instantaneous creation (Eg 5th day no humans, 24 hours later BOOM!!! humans) but rather a long long long (think billions of years) process, would this change your religious views ?

For example.....

1) No difference, whether humans are the product of a more instantaneous result, or the result of a long process that goes back billions of years, your views on the existence of God and Jesus as the son of God/atonement or whatever you believe wouldn't change.

2) Big difference, if humans are result of a process that goes back over billions of years then I would no longer believe that God exists, or believe that God probably doesn't exist.

3) Other ?

"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12

If evolution/atheism were true it would be impossible to prove anything! So 1 and 2 would not be possible

Here"s why:

"Reasoning involves using the laws of logic. These include the law of non-contradiction which says that you can"t have A and not-A at the same time and in the same relationship. For example, the statement "My car is in the parking lot, and it is not the case that my car is in the parking lot" is necessarily false by the law of non-contradiction. Any rational person would accept this law. But why is this law true? Why should there be a law of non-contradiction, or for that matter, any laws of reasoning? The Christian can answer this question. For the Christian there is an absolute standard for reasoning; we are to pattern our thoughts after God"s. The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks. The law of non-contradiction is not simply one person"s opinion of how we ought to think, rather it stems from God"s self-consistent nature. God cannot deny Himself ( 2 Timothy 2:13), and so, the way God upholds the universe will necessarily be non-contradictory.

Laws of logic are God"s standard for thinking. Since God is an unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, the laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariant entities. In other words, they are not made of matter"they apply everywhere and at all times. Laws of logic are contingent upon God"s unchanging nature. And they are necessary for logical reasoning. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God.

The materialistic atheist can"t have laws of logic. He believes that everything that exists is material"part of the physical world. But laws of logic are not physical. You can"t stub your toe on a law of logic. Laws of logic cannot exist in the atheist"s world, yet he uses them to try to reason. This is inconsistent. He is borrowing from the Christian worldview to argue against the Christian worldview. The atheist"s view cannot be rational because he uses things (laws of logic) that cannot exist according to his profession.

The debate over the existence of God is a bit like a debate over the existence of air. Can you imagine someone arguing that air doesn"t actually exist? He would offer seemingly excellent "proofs" against the existence of air, while simultaneously breathing air and expecting that we can hear his words as the sound is transmitted through the air. In order for us to hear and understand his claim, it would have to be wrong. Likewise, the atheist, in arguing that God does not exist must use laws of logic that only make sense if God does exist. In order for his argument to make sense, it would have to be wrong.

How can the atheist respond?

The atheist might say, "Well, I can reason just fine, and I don"t believe in God." But this is no different than the critic of air saying, "Well, I can breathe just fine, and I don"t believe in air." This isn"t a rational response. Breathing requires air, not a profession of belief in air. Likewise, logical reasoning requires God, not a profession of belief in Him. Of course the atheist can reason; it"s because God has made his mind and given him access to the laws of logic"and that"s the point. It"s because God exists that reasoning is possible. The atheist can reason, but within his own worldview he cannot account for his ability to reason.

The atheist might respond, "Laws of logic are conventions made up by man." But conventions are (by definition) conventional. That is, we all agree to them and so they work"like driving on the right side of the road. But if laws of logic were conventional, then different cultures could adopt different laws of logic (like driving on the left side of the road). So, in some cultures it might be perfectly fine to contradict yourself. In some societies truth could be self-contradictory. Clearly that wouldn"t do. If laws of logic are just conventions, then they are not universal laws. Rational debate would be impossible if laws of logic were conventional, because the two opponents could simply pick different standards for reasoning. Each would be right according to his own arbitrary standard.

The atheist might respond, "Laws of logic are material"they are made of electro-chemical connections in the brain." But then the laws of logic are not universal; they would not extend beyond the brain. In other words, we couldn"t argue that contradictions cannot occur on Mars, since no one"s brain is on Mars. In fact, if the laws of logic are just electro-chemical connections in the brain, then they would differ somewhat from person to person because everyone has different connections in their brain.

Sometimes an atheist will attempt to answer with a more pragmatic response: "We use the laws of logic because they work." Unfortunately for him, that isn"t the question. We all agree the laws of logic work; they work because they"re true. The question is why do they exist in the first place? How can the atheist account for absolute standards of reasoning like the laws of logic? How can non-material things like laws exist if the universe is material only?

As a last resort, the atheist may give up a strictly materialistic view and agree that there are immaterial, universal laws. This is a huge concession; after all, if a person is willing to concede that immaterial, universal, unchanging entities can exist, then he must consider the possibility that God exists. But this concession does not save the atheist"s position. He must still justify the laws of logic. Why do they exist? And what is the point of contact between the material physical world and the immaterial world of logic? In other words, why does the material universe feel compelled to obey immaterial laws? The atheist cannot answer these questions. His worldview cannot be justified; it is arbitrary and thus irrational.

Conclusions

Clearly, atheism is not a rational worldview. It is self-refuting because the atheist must first assume the opposite of what he is trying to prove in order to be able to prove anything. As Dr. Cornelius VanTil put it, "[A]theism presupposes theism." Laws of logic require the existence of God"and not just any god, but the Christian God. Only the God of the Bible can be the foundation for knowledge (Proverbs 1:7; Colossians 2:3). Since the God of Scripture is immaterial, sovereign, and beyond time, it makes sense to have laws of logic that are immaterial, universal, and unchanging. Since God has revealed Himself to man, we are able to know and use logic. Since God made the universe and since God made our minds, it makes sense that our minds would have an ability to study and understand the universe. But if the brain is simply the result of mindless evolutionary processes that conveyed some sort of survival value in the past, why should we trust its conclusions? If the universe and our minds are simply the results of time and chance, as the atheist contends, why would we expect that the mind could make sense of the universe? How could science and technology be possible?

Rational thinking, science, and technology make sense in a Christian worldview. The Christian has a basis for these things; the atheist does not. This is not to say that atheists cannot be rational about some things. They can because they too are made in God"s image and have access to God"s laws of logic. But they have no rational basis for rationality within their own worldview. Likewise, atheists can be moral, but they have no basis for that morality according to what they claim to believe. An atheist is a walking bundle of contradictions. He reasons and does science, yet he denies the very God that makes reasoning and science possible. On the other hand, the Christian worldview is consistent and makes sense of human reasoning and experience."

At 12/26/2012 1:00:15 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:Okey I did post this on some another thread, but in hindsight that other thread has being derailed enough so I shouldn't of done that, and since I am curious to see how this goes I may as well make a thread.

I am curious if you were convinced to your own satisfaction that humans as we think of them now did or probably did come into being, not by an some act of near instantaneous creation (Eg 5th day no humans, 24 hours later BOOM!!! humans) but rather a long long long (think billions of years) process, would this change your religious views ?

For example.....

1) No difference, whether humans are the product of a more instantaneous result, or the result of a long process that goes back billions of years, your views on the existence of God and Jesus as the son of God/atonement or whatever you believe wouldn't change.

2) Big difference, if humans are result of a process that goes back over billions of years then I would no longer believe that God exists, or believe that God probably doesn't exist.

3) Other ?

No change; don't care.

'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13

If evolution/atheism were true it would be impossible to prove anything! So 1 and 2 would not be possible

Here"s why:

"Reasoning involves using the laws of logic.

should there be a law of non-contradiction, or for that matter, any laws of reasoning?

1) Just because something is unexplained doesn't prove that God did it (Eg Earthquakes a few hundred years ago)

The Christian can answer this question. For the Christian there is an absolute standard for reasoning;

Possible conflating of laws of logic with other "thought" and/or "reasoning"

we are to pattern our thoughts after God"s. The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks.

Unsupported assertion

The law of non-contradiction is not simply one person"s opinion of how we ought to think,

Again the law of NC and thinking are different things.

rather it stems from God"s self-consistent nature. God cannot deny Himself ( 2 Timothy 2:13), and so, the way God upholds the universe will necessarily be non-contradictory.

Unsupported assertion + gibberish. What does a universe that is contradictory look like ?

Laws of logic are God"s standard for thinking.

Really ?

Since God is an unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, the laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariant entities.

Non Sequitur

In other words, they are not made of matter"they apply everywhere and at all times. Laws of logic are contingent upon God"s unchanging nature.

Unsupported assertion. Just because you state something is contingent on God doesn't make it so.

The materialistic atheist can"t have laws of logic. He believes that everything that exists is material"part of the physical world.

Atheism does not equal materialism

But laws of logic are not physical. He is borrowing from the Christian worldview to argue against the Christian worldview.

This assumes that the LOL are dependent on the existence of God, this is debatable.

The atheist"s view cannot be rational because he uses things (laws of logic) that cannot exist according to his profession.

Says you.

Likewise, the atheist, in arguing that God does not exist must use laws of logic that only make sense if God does exist. In order for his argument to make sense, it would have to be wrong.

Well you say so, so it must be true.

How can the atheist respond?

. Likewise, logical reasoning requires God, not a profession of belief in Him. Of course the atheist can reason; it"s because God has made his mind and given him access to the laws of logic"and that"s the point. It"s because God exists that reasoning is possible. The atheist can reason, but within his own worldview he cannot account for his ability to reason.

Sometimes an atheist will attempt to answer with a more pragmatic response: "We use the laws of logic because they work." Unfortunately for him, that isn"t the question. We all agree the laws of logic work; they work because they"re true. The question is why do they exist in the first place? How can the atheist account for absolute standards of reasoning like the laws of logic? How can non-material things like laws exist if the universe is material only?

I don't know therefore God ? that's a great argument isn't it ?

As a last resort, the atheist may give up a strictly materialistic view and agree that there are immaterial, universal laws. This is a huge concession; after all, if a person is willing to concede that immaterial, universal, unchanging entities can exist, then he must consider the possibility that God exists. But this concession does not save the atheist"s position. He must still justify the laws of logic. Why do they exist? And what is the point of contact between the material physical world and the immaterial world of logic? In other words, why does the material universe feel compelled to obey immaterial laws? The atheist cannot answer these questions. His worldview cannot be justified; it is arbitrary and thus irrational.

Can't explain something therefore must be God, gotcha.

Say can you explain to me how tide goes in tide goes out ?

Conclusions

So the laws of logic can only exist if God exists, not just not God the christian God, no just not the christian God, the christian God as believed by the good folk at answers in genesis right ?. And hey, if the atheist can't prove otherwise, well it must be true.

"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12

I would love to engage in some creative discussion with you, but, sadly, you provided nothing substantive in your response. I encourage you to dig a little deeper and look at the article on the website for yourself, and any others relating to this topic.

I would love to engage in some creative discussion with you, but, sadly, you provided nothing substantive in your response. I encourage you to dig a little deeper and look at the article on the website for yourself, and any others relating to this topic.

Yawn.......

Ill engage in creative discussion with you when you realize two things......

1) Just because something is unexplained or "unaccounted" for doesn't mean God did it2) Just because some one claims the existence of something can only exist if God exists doesn't make it true

I can't say ultimately how my religious views would end up, but I'd be less than honest if I didn't admit that it would seriously shake up what I now believe, and likely cause a period of great confusion for me.

There's a little more to it than understanding how man was created, or originated. Evolution of man would have some very important implications that affect the very basic doctrines of Christianity. According to the Bible, man brought death into the world through sin, and before Adam and Eve sinned, death did not exist. If evolution is true, death existed long before man even walked the earth, so the concept of original sin, evil, and the need for repentence through Christ as the only means of salvation, is called into question.

That alone is enough to shake the very foundations of the Christian belief system, and is one of the biggest reasons that it's easy to turn people away from Christianity through the teaching of evolution.

The law of non-contradiction is not simply one person"s opinion of how we ought to think, rather it stems from God"s self-consistent nature. God cannot deny Himself ( 2 Timothy 2:13), and so, the way God upholds the universe will necessarily be non-contradictory.

You simply define God as logical and self-consistent. So of course he is!

laws of logic are not physical.

You don't know this. And the fact that you can't stub your toe on them does not mean they don't reduce to physical facts. You can't stub your toe on any mental content, but that is not a good argument that mental content does not supervene on the physical. There is plenty of evidence that thinking relies on the brain.

Anyhow, an atheist is not committed to materialism or physicalism.

The debate over the existence of God is a bit like a debate over the existence of air. Can you imagine someone arguing that air doesn"t actually exist? He would offer seemingly excellent "proofs" against the existence of air, while simultaneously breathing air and expecting that we can hear his words as the sound is transmitted through the air.

Did you get this from your pastor? This is moronic. We have evidence of air's existence. Theists tend to claim God is beyond physical investigation.

The atheist might respond, "Laws of logic are material"they are made of electro-chemical connections in the brain." But then the laws of logic are not universal; they would not extend beyond the brain. In other words, we couldn"t argue that contradictions cannot occur on Mars, since no one"s brain is on Mars. In fact, if the laws of logic are just electro-chemical connections in the brain, then they would differ somewhat from person to person because everyone has different connections in their brain.

We can only assess the universe through our brains. So in that sense the laws of logic are universal. However, there is good reason to suppose that what we think to some degree reflects the actual world.

The structure of all human brains are similar enough for laws of logic to be understood by most humans. Obviously there are exceptions, according to age and disability.

the atheist may give up a strictly materialistic view and agree that there are immaterial, universal laws. This is a huge concession; after all, if a person is willing to concede that immaterial, universal, unchanging entities can exist, then he must consider the possibility that God exists.

Sure, but it doesn't mean that there is any reason to think a god does exist. It certainly doesn't mean it's logical to believe in the Christian God.

But this concession does not save the atheist"s position. He must still justify the laws of logic. Why do they exist? And what is the point of contact between the material physical world and the immaterial world of logic? In other words, why does the material universe feel compelled to obey immaterial laws? The atheist cannot answer these questions. His worldview cannot be justified; it is arbitrary and thus irrational.

"I don't know" is a valuable response. It is a recognition of limits, and the need for further exploration. The error of many a theist is to think that they must know all answers, therefore to assume the arbitrary guesses of other men as divine fiat.

Understand this, if nothing else: it is not irrational to say "I don't know."

At 12/26/2012 1:00:15 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:Okey I did post this on some another thread, but in hindsight that other thread has being derailed enough so I shouldn't of done that, and since I am curious to see how this goes I may as well make a thread.

I am curious if you were convinced to your own satisfaction that humans as we think of them now did or probably did come into being, not by an some act of near instantaneous creation (Eg 5th day no humans, 24 hours later BOOM!!! humans) but rather a long long long (think billions of years) process, would this change your religious views ?

For example.....

1) No difference, whether humans are the product of a more instantaneous result, or the result of a long process that goes back billions of years, your views on the existence of God and Jesus as the son of God/atonement or whatever you believe wouldn't change.

2) Big difference, if humans are result of a process that goes back over billions of years then I would no longer believe that God exists, or believe that God probably doesn't exist.

3) Other ?

1. Evolution and Christianity are not mutually-exclusive. There are many Christians who believe in Evolution, and many who don't believe in Evolution but nevertheless believe in an old age model of the Earth/universe. Evolution does not disprove the existence of God. If God created everything, then it's certainly within his power to evolve humans from a lower form of life.

3) Other. It doesn't matter too much since I'm already in the position where I accept both evolution and have my religious beliefs but obviously (speaking as if I didn't hold these two views) I'd have to change some particular religious beliefs - like, for instance, thinking that the Augustinian reading of the story of Adam and Eve is more plausible than the Irenaean reading. It isn't plausible due to moral and textual reasons even disregarding evolution but it's held by a lot of North American Christians (especially within more conservative circles). It arguably makes the PoE harder (see: Paul Draper), etc.

"For much of my life, Id believed in a recent universe, being suspicious of any "billions of years" talk. But after read scientifically-trained authors Christian and non-Christian with no apparent axe to grind who repeatedly spoke of an ancient cosmos. I investigated further. To my surprise, not only did many young-earth "evidences" in which I had taken scientific refuge come crashing down; I found that most such "evidences" highly selective, skewed, outdated, or otherwise problematic. I'd have been happy to find solid support for a young universe (I'm still open to persuasion), but I regularly found it to be shaky at best. The more I studied the Scriptures and the relevant, wide-ranging scientific data, the more reasonably I could conclude that (a) the universe is billions of years old and (b) Scripture accords nicely with this evidence. The breath-taking splendor of God"s creation isn't diminished if the process took billions of years rather than six 24-hour days. The heavens still declare God's glory."- Paul Copan

At 12/26/2012 2:31:05 AM, joshh_03 wrote:"Reasoning involves using the laws of logic. These include the law of non-contradiction which says that you can"t have A and not-A at the same time and in the same relationship. For example, the statement "My car is in the parking lot, and it is not the case that my car is in the parking lot" is necessarily false by the law of non-contradiction. Any rational person would accept this law. But why is this law true? Why should there be a law of non-contradiction, or for that matter, any laws of reasoning? The Christian can answer this question. For the Christian there is an absolute standard for reasoning; we are to pattern our thoughts after God"s. The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks. The law of non-contradiction is not simply one person"s opinion of how we ought to think, rather it stems from God"s self-consistent nature. God cannot deny Himself ( 2 Timothy 2:13), and so, the way God upholds the universe will necessarily be non-contradictory.

Laws of logic are God"s standard for thinking. Since God is an unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, the laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariant entities. In other words, they are not made of matter"they apply everywhere and at all times. Laws of logic are contingent upon God"s unchanging nature. And they are necessary for logical reasoning. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God.

The materialistic atheist can"t have laws of logic. He believes that everything that exists is material"part of the physical world. But laws of logic are not physical. You can"t stub your toe on a law of logic. Laws of logic cannot exist in the atheist"s world, yet he uses them to try to reason. This is inconsistent. He is borrowing from the Christian worldview to argue against the Christian worldview. The atheist"s view cannot be rational because he uses things (laws of logic) that cannot exist according to his profession.

The debate over the existence of God is a bit like a debate over the existence of air. Can you imagine someone arguing that air doesn"t actually exist? He would offer seemingly excellent "proofs" against the existence of air, while simultaneously breathing air and expecting that we can hear his words as the sound is transmitted through the air. In order for us to hear and understand his claim, it would have to be wrong. Likewise, the atheist, in arguing that God does not exist must use laws of logic that only make sense if God does exist. In order for his argument to make sense, it would have to be wrong.

How can the atheist respond?

The atheist might say, "Well, I can reason just fine, and I don"t believe in God." But this is no different than the critic of air saying, "Well, I can breathe just fine, and I don"t believe in air." This isn"t a rational response. Breathing requires air, not a profession of belief in air. Likewise, logical reasoning requires God, not a profession of belief in Him. Of course the atheist can reason; it"s because God has made his mind and given him access to the laws of logic"and that"s the point. It"s because God exists that reasoning is possible. The atheist can reason, but within his own worldview he cannot account for his ability to reason.

The atheist might respond, "Laws of logic are conventions made up by man." But conventions are (by definition) conventional. That is, we all agree to them and so they work"like driving on the right side of the road. But if laws of logic were conventional, then different cultures could adopt different laws of logic (like driving on the left side of the road). So, in some cultures it might be perfectly fine to contradict yourself. In some societies truth could be self-contradictory. Clearly that wouldn"t do. If laws of logic are just conventions, then they are not universal laws. Rational debate would be impossible if laws of logic were conventional, because the two opponents could simply pick different standards for reasoning. Each would be right according to his own arbitrary standard.

The atheist might respond, "Laws of logic are material"they are made of electro-chemical connections in the brain." But then the laws of logic are not universal; they would not extend beyond the brain. In other words, we couldn"t argue that contradictions cannot occur on Mars, since no one"s brain is on Mars. In fact, if the laws of logic are just electro-chemical connections in the brain, then they would differ somewhat from person to person because everyone has different connections in their brain.

Sometimes an atheist will attempt to answer with a more pragmatic response: "We use the laws of logic because they work." Unfortunately for him, that isn"t the question. We all agree the laws of logic work; they work because they"re true. The question is why do they exist in the first place? How can the atheist account for absolute standards of reasoning like the laws of logic? How can non-material things like laws exist if the universe is material only?

As a last resort, the atheist may give up a strictly materialistic view and agree that there are immaterial, universal laws. This is a huge concession; after all, if a person is willing to concede that immaterial, universal, unchanging entities can exist, then he must consider the possibility that God exists. But this concession does not save the atheist"s position. He must still justify the laws of logic. Why do they exist? And what is the point of contact between the material physical world and the immaterial world of logic? In other words, why does the material universe feel compelled to obey immaterial laws? The atheist cannot answer these questions. His worldview cannot be justified; it is arbitrary and thus irrational.

Conclusions

Clearly, atheism is not a rational worldview. It is self-refuting because the atheist must first assume the opposite of what he is trying to prove in order to be able to prove anything. As Dr. Cornelius VanTil put it, "[A]theism presupposes theism." Laws of logic require the existence of God"and not just any god, but the Christian God. Only the God of the Bible can be the foundation for knowledge (Proverbs 1:7; Colossians 2:3). Since the God of Scripture is immaterial, sovereign, and beyond time, it makes sense to have laws of logic that are immaterial, universal, and unchanging. Since God has revealed Himself to man, we are able to know and use logic. Since God made the universe and since God made our minds, it makes sense that our minds would have an ability to study and understand the universe. But if the brain is simply the result of mindless evolutionary processes that conveyed some sort of survival value in the past, why should we trust its conclusions? If the universe and our minds are simply the results of time and chance, as the atheist contends, why would we expect that the mind could make sense of the universe? How could science and technology be possible?

Rational thinking, science, and technology make sense in a Christian worldview. The Christian has a basis for these things; the atheist does not. This is not to say that atheists cannot be rational about some things. They can because they too are made in God"s image and have access to God"s laws of logic. But they have no rational basis for rationality within their own worldview. Likewise, atheists can be moral, but they have no basis for that morality according to what they claim to believe. An atheist is a walking bundle of contradictions. He reasons and does science, yet he denies the very God that makes reasoning and science possible. On the other hand, the Christian worldview is consistent and makes sense of human reasoning and experience."

At 12/26/2012 1:00:15 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:Okey I did post this on some another thread, but in hindsight that other thread has being derailed enough so I shouldn't of done that, and since I am curious to see how this goes I may as well make a thread.

I am curious if you were convinced to your own satisfaction that humans as we think of them now did or probably did come into being, not by an some act of near instantaneous creation (Eg 5th day no humans, 24 hours later BOOM!!! humans) but rather a long long long (think billions of years) process, would this change your religious views ?

For example.....

1) No difference, whether humans are the product of a more instantaneous result, or the result of a long process that goes back billions of years, your views on the existence of God and Jesus as the son of God/atonement or whatever you believe wouldn't change.

2) Big difference, if humans are result of a process that goes back over billions of years then I would no longer believe that God exists, or believe that God probably doesn't exist.

3) Other ?

1. Evolution and Christianity are not mutually-exclusive. There are many Christians who believe in Evolution, and many who don't believe in Evolution but nevertheless believe in an old age model of the Earth/universe. Evolution does not disprove the existence of God. If God created everything, then it's certainly within his power to evolve humans from a lower form of life.

Sure, but the question is about people who don't believe evolution is true, if they were to change their mind what if any consequences this would have on their various religious belief.

Of course you can make God in the most general sense compatible with almost anything.

"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12

At 12/26/2012 10:02:25 AM, medic0506 wrote:I can't say ultimately how my religious views would end up, but I'd be less than honest if I didn't admit that it would seriously shake up what I now believe, and likely cause a period of great confusion for me.

There's a little more to it than understanding how man was created, or originated. Evolution of man would have some very important implications that affect the very basic doctrines of Christianity. According to the Bible, man brought death into the world through sin, and before Adam and Eve sinned, death did not exist. If evolution is true, death existed long before man even walked the earth, so the concept of original sin, evil, and the need for repentence through Christ as the only means of salvation, is called into question.

I don't know if this is significant for you but what you said about death only applies if you take that literally.

That alone is enough to shake the very foundations of the Christian belief system, and is one of the biggest reasons that it's easy to turn people away from Christianity through the teaching of evolution.

Trouble is that sets up evolution vs christianity (religious belief), where evolution can't possibly be true where in such cases some one assumes that their religious beliefs can't possible be wrong.

"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12

At 12/26/2012 1:00:15 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:Okey I did post this on some another thread, but in hindsight that other thread has being derailed enough so I shouldn't of done that, and since I am curious to see how this goes I may as well make a thread.

I am curious if you were convinced to your own satisfaction that humans as we think of them now did or probably did come into being, not by an some act of near instantaneous creation (Eg 5th day no humans, 24 hours later BOOM!!! humans) but rather a long long long (think billions of years) process, would this change your religious views ?

For example.....

1) No difference, whether humans are the product of a more instantaneous result, or the result of a long process that goes back billions of years, your views on the existence of God and Jesus as the son of God/atonement or whatever you believe wouldn't change.

2) Big difference, if humans are result of a process that goes back over billions of years then I would no longer believe that God exists, or believe that God probably doesn't exist.

3) Other ?

1. Evolution and Christianity are not mutually-exclusive. There are many Christians who believe in Evolution, and many who don't believe in Evolution but nevertheless believe in an old age model of the Earth/universe. Evolution does not disprove the existence of God. If God created everything, then it's certainly within his power to evolve humans from a lower form of life.

Sure, but the question is about people who don't believe evolution is true, if they were to change their mind what if any consequences this would have on their various religious belief.

Of course you can make God in the most general sense compatible with almost anything.

I am a Christian who doesn't believe Evolution happened. I am telling you how it would affect my beliefs. It wouldn't, because God could certainly use Evolution. In fact, there are Christians who argue that Evolution actually proves God's existence.

I am a Christian who doesn't believe Evolution happened. I am telling you how it would affect my beliefs. It wouldn't, because God could certainly use Evolution. In fact, there are Christians who argue that Evolution actually proves God's existence.

Then why don't you believe it happened? Do you disbelieve other well confirmed scientific theories? Think there's something fundamentally wrong with science?

At 12/26/2012 10:02:25 AM, medic0506 wrote:I can't say ultimately how my religious views would end up, but I'd be less than honest if I didn't admit that it would seriously shake up what I now believe, and likely cause a period of great confusion for me.

There's a little more to it than understanding how man was created, or originated. Evolution of man would have some very important implications that affect the very basic doctrines of Christianity. According to the Bible, man brought death into the world through sin, and before Adam and Eve sinned, death did not exist. If evolution is true, death existed long before man even walked the earth, so the concept of original sin, evil, and the need for repentence through Christ as the only means of salvation, is called into question.

I don't know if this is significant for you but what you said about death only applies if you take that literally.

Well if I didn't take that part literally then I'd have trouble finding justification for a number of teachings in the Bible.

That alone is enough to shake the very foundations of the Christian belief system, and is one of the biggest reasons that it's easy to turn people away from Christianity through the teaching of evolution.

Trouble is that sets up evolution vs christianity (religious belief), where evolution can't possibly be true where in such cases some one assumes that their religious beliefs can't possible be wrong.

Another way of looking at what you just said is that it sets up a situation where one looks at the Bible as true, and aren't so gullible that they can be tricked into falling for myths disguised as science, which cause them to doubt the word, or even the existence, of God.

At 12/27/2012 4:41:28 AM, medic0506 wrote:one looks at the Bible as true, and aren't so gullible that they can be tricked into falling for myths

...

HA!!!

I'd rather claim belief in a creator God than to believe that the universe can create itself from nothing, and that a pre-cellular life form can create itself from a rock, design and produce a cell, then evolve into an intelligent life form that has to have both a male and female version to reproduce.

At 12/27/2012 4:41:28 AM, medic0506 wrote:one looks at the Bible as true, and aren't so gullible that they can be tricked into falling for myths

...

HA!!!

I'd rather claim belief in a creator God than to believe that the universe can create itself from nothing, and that a pre-cellular life form can create itself from a rock, design and produce a cell, then evolve into an intelligent life form that has to have both a male and female version to reproduce.

That must be a pretty incompetant creator in which you believe given the inefficiencies and flaws in our anatomy alone, not to mention the rest of the universe. Neil DeGrasse Tyson explains quite a few of them in the attached video.

At 12/26/2012 1:00:15 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:Okey I did post this on some another thread, but in hindsight that other thread has being derailed enough so I shouldn't of done that, and since I am curious to see how this goes I may as well make a thread.

I am curious if you were convinced to your own satisfaction that humans as we think of them now did or probably did come into being, not by an some act of near instantaneous creation (Eg 5th day no humans, 24 hours later BOOM!!! humans) but rather a long long long (think billions of years) process, would this change your religious views ?A day in the Bible is millions of years in real life...For example.....

1) No difference, whether humans are the product of a more instantaneous result, or the result of a long process that goes back billions of years, your views on the existence of God and Jesus as the son of God/atonement or whatever you believe wouldn't change.-/2) Big difference, if humans are result of a process that goes back over billions of years then I would no longer believe that God exists, or believe that God probably doesn't exist.

3) Other ?

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

At 12/27/2012 4:41:28 AM, medic0506 wrote:one looks at the Bible as true, and aren't so gullible that they can be tricked into falling for myths

...

HA!!!

I'd rather claim belief in a creator God than to believe that the universe can create itself from nothing, and that a pre-cellular life form can create itself from a rock, design and produce a cell, then evolve into an intelligent life form that has to have both a male and female version to reproduce.

That must be a pretty incompetant creator in which you believe given the inefficiencies and flaws in our anatomy alone, not to mention the rest of the universe. Neil DeGrasse Tyson explains quite a few of them in the attached video.

It's easy to make arguments like this when no one questions you about things like, purpose. Perhaps there is a reason why things are the way they are. For instance, any dummy can figure out why we talk, eat, and breathe through the same hole. If that hole weren't needed for other important purposes then we'd never get women to shut up. I'd bet that Adam had that puzzle solved before his first day with Eve was over.